4.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Moscow.
First set of proceedings
5.  On 15 June 1998 the applicant brought proceedings against four publishing houses seeking recognition of his copyright and an award of damages. The claim was lodged with the Ostankinskiy District Court of Moscow.
6.  On 5 November 1998 the claim was rejected on the ground that, according to the rules governing jurisdiction, it should have been filed with another court. On 15 November 1998 the applicant filed a complaint with the Moscow City Court.
7.  The Moscow City Court on 10 December 1998 quashed the ruling of 5 November 1998 and remitted the case to the Ostankinskiy District Court for consideration on the merits.
8.  On 22 April 1999 the Ostankinskiy District Court ruled that the case should be remitted to the Meschanskiy District Court of Moscow. On 5 May 1999 the applicant filed a complaint with the Moscow City Court.
9.  The Moscow City Court on 30 July 1999 quashed the ruling of 22 April 1999 and remitted the case to the Ostankinskiy District Court for consideration on the merits.
10.  On 11 November 1999 a preliminary hearing was fixed for 6 December 1999. However, the preparation of the case was initially extended to 31 January 2000 because of the defendants' failure to appear and subsequently extended to 14 February 2000 because of the judge's holiday leave.
11.  On 14 February 2000 a hearing on the merits was fixed for 16 March 2000. That hearing did not take place because the case had been transferred to another judge.
12.  On 10 August 2000 a hearing was fixed for 21 August 2000. It was initially postponed to 20 November 2000 because the judge was engaged in unrelated proceedings, and then to 18 December 2000 because of the defendants' failure to appear.
13.  The Ostankinskiy District Court on 18 December 2000 again ruled that the case should be remitted to the Meschanskiy District Court. On 12 February 2001 the applicant filed a complaint with the Moscow City Court.
14.  The Moscow City Court on 14 March 2001 quashed the ruling of 18 December 2000 and remitted the case to the Ostankinskiy District Court for consideration on the merits.
15.  On 27 August 2001 a hearing on the merits was fixed for 29 November 2001. However, it was first postponed to 28 December 2001 and then to 4 January 2002 because the judge was engaged in unrelated proceedings.
16.  On 4 January 2002 the hearing was postponed to 7 February 2002 because of the parties' failure to appear. The applicant did not appear on account of illness.
17.  On 7 February 2002 the applicant's claim was left without consideration on account of his second failure to appear at the hearing.
18.  The Ostankinskiy District Court on 2 September 2002 quashed its ruling of 7 February 2002 on the grounds that the applicant had not been notified about the hearing in due course. The court fixed a new hearing on the merits for 23 September 2002. It appears that the hearing did not take place.
19.  On 21 October 2002 the applicant received notification that the hearing was fixed for 5 November 2002. The applicant could not appear on account of his illness and informed the court accordingly.
20.  On an unspecified date the case was transferred to another judge, on account of the dismissal of the judge who had been dealing with the case. A preliminary hearing was fixed for 17 April 2003.
21.  The applicant attended the hearing on the last mentioned date. However, the judge informed him that she did not have his case file and did not know where it was. Following an unsuccessful two-hour search for the case file the applicant was advised to leave. It later transpired that one of the clerks in the court's registry was in possession of the case file as he had been preparing a reply to a complaint lodged by the applicant.
22.  On 24 June 2003 a preliminary hearing was fixed for 18 August 2003. However, preparation of the case was extended to 22 September 2003 because of the judge's sick leave.
23.  On 22 September 2003 a preliminary hearing was fixed for 23 October 2003.
24.  On 23 October 2003 the applicant's claims against each defendant were divided into four different sets of proceedings. Hearings on the merits of all four claims were fixed for 26 December 2003.
25.  The Ostankinskiy District Court partially granted the applicant's claim against the first defendant on 26 December 2003. As the court received no confirmation that the other defendants had been properly notified of the hearings, the hearings on the claims against them were postponed to 30 January 2004, 4 and 5 February 2004. By three judgments delivered on the aforementioned dates, the court partially granted the applicant's claims. The judgments were not appealed against and entered into force.
Second set of proceedings
26.  On 27 January 2002 the applicant filed two applications with the Supreme Court of Russia and the Moscow City Court respectively, seeking authorisation to study case files related to previously lodged applications for supervisory review of certain judgments concerning his civil claims. The applications were refused on the ground that the legislation in force did not provide for the possibility of studying case files related to applications for supervisory review, since it was an extraordinary remedy. However, a reasoned reply would be sent to the applicant after delivery of a decision.
27.  On 3 March 2002 the applicant filed two complaints concerning the refusals with the court. His complaints were rejected by a final ruling of the Moscow City Court of 14 June 2002.